Run, do not walk (or at least link your way quickly), to David Sirota’s recent Salon column on “The Neo-Liberal Bait-and-Switch: Why Corporate-Friendly Democrats Like to Blame our Schools for Not Producing Enough White-Color Specialists.” (Sirota was also a guest on NPR’s “Tell Me More” today). His is one of the first discussions of STEM workforce issues I’ve heard that explicitly acknowledges outsourcing as a cause of the nation’s ostensible “under-supply” of high-tech workers.
I know: the logic sounds backwards. Surely outsourcing comes after employers have tried and failed to find domestic labor pools. And indeed, the story even among education and employment experts outside of industry usually goes that American firms really, really want to hire more Americans for their emerging manufacturing and research tasks, but just can’t find appropriately prepared workers. That’s supposedly why we need to upgrade our technical education, or STEM, system.
Yes, those upgrades are needed (see below), but Sirota clarifies that corporate-sector invocations of national educational deficits are a red herring. He says that employers may claim they can’t find enough sufficiently or appropriately trained workers within American borders, yet what those employers really mean is they can’t find enough trained workers willing to work as cheaply as non-Americans. That profit motive is what really drives the corporate turn to non-US workers and, he explains, will continue to do so until we ratchet down our neo-liberal legal and regulatory zeal for free-trade.
Sirota helps us see that in the meantime, corporate self-interest (like politicians’ capitulations to those private interests) is disguised by more socially acceptable rhetoric about the urgency surrounding national technical readiness and competitiveness, increasingly (and dramatically) linked to national security as well.
I’d only add this to Sirota’s incisive analysis of the “Great Education Myth,” as he calls it: The pro-business agenda of minimizing labor costs by encouraging employment of non-US workers also helps justify a lack of authentic diversity and inclusion activity among American businesses. Frustrated advocates of improved gender and minority equity in STEM hiring are awfully familiar with the corporate excuse: “We just can’t find qualified women and people of color.” For policy makers, corporations’ good intentions are apparently enough. Enhanced training and recruitment efforts (which might reduce a company’s profit margins) are off the table as a reasonable next step; business-friendly lawmakers like those Sirota describes don’t do much to counter that shallow and shortsighted assessment of American technical pools.
All such assessments in turn weaken public support for expanded educational opportunities. A conservative and inequitable social system tidily perpetuates itself. Thanks to David Sirota for enriching our understanding of these distressing, and often hidden, ideologies permeating STEM workforce thinking today.